Jump to content
=LG=Kathon

Tactical Air War

Recommended Posts

Apologies. I was thinking in terms of WoL

 

I agree with you, however, TAW isn't the place for heavy game balancing. It's meant to simulate a real war.

 

If one side has shortcomings, it needs to be made up for by it's pilots.

 

I do agree that the IL-2 is a better plane to attack tanks with, however as some people have shown, Lufties can use some tricks to raise their effectiveness when it comes to anti-armor sorties.

 

When it comes to hitting large objectives like factories, I think you're terribly wrong on what it should take to destroy them. A single or double plane sortie should not be able to destroy a large objective. Also, when it comes to heavy bombing, the Axis has two good planes for bombing. The Russians only have the Pe-2. The IL-2 can carry 2x250kgs, but that's not going to get you very far on a factory.

 

You say it takes a 5+ plane sortie to kill a factory objective? That's good.

 

By all means simulate the shortcomings and advantages of both sides. but don't be selective in which ones are modelled. 

You are i assume referring to technical and equipment based differences. but what of supply, logistics, manpower, local/operational numerical superiority in a portion of a theatre?

shortcomings of a technical nature can be overcome by superior logistics and operational decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to this page: http://mapswar2.x10host.com/Battle_of_Moscow_1941_World_War_2_Campaigns.htm

 

A Soviet tank brigade in December 1941 consisted of: 16 T-60 (32%) , 20 T-34 (40%), 14 KV-1s (28%). However you also had Cavalry divisions, which had 64 BT light tanks, which were independent of the tank brigades.

 

Defending Moscow there were: 4 tank brigades and 6 cavalry divisions, with 10 other tank brigades in reserves or at the "Reserve Front".

 

In the end it would be a total of 384 BT tanks (35%), 224 T-60s (21%), 280 T-34s (26%), 196 KV-1s (18%).

 

 

 

If someone could find something similar to Battle of Stalingrad and for the German side it would be great

Found a ressource (ty to "Military History Visualized")

 

http://niehorster.org/011_germany/42_organ/ad_pz-rgt.html

 

Strenght of different Divisions for different dates.

Edited by DerSheriff
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By all means simulate the shortcomings and advantages of both sides. but don't be selective in which ones are modelled. 

You are i assume referring to technical and equipment based differences. but what of supply, logistics, manpower, local/operational numerical superiority in a portion of a theatre?

shortcomings of a technical nature can be overcome by superior logistics and operational decisions.

Good point.

 

That would have to be purely decided on by developers, I imagine, since it would be taking wartime men/material stats and scaling them down for a 84 player server. And not only that. Early war, Germans would have higher supply and manpower, but mid to late war would be heavily skewed toward Russians, I believe.

 

That would be an interesting concept for TAW since TAW spans a whole campaign, they could simulate either Germany dwindling due to being hammered at 3 fronts, or just forgo it entirely and have it be based on who's winning the campaign.

 

I'm sure that would be far in the future though. I think TAW has some other more urgent matters to tend to for the coming campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point.

 

That would have to be purely decided on by developers, I imagine, since it would be taking wartime men/material stats and scaling them down for a 84 player server. And not only that. Early war, Germans would have higher supply and manpower, but mid to late war would be heavily skewed toward Russians, I believe.

 

That would be an interesting concept for TAW since TAW spans a whole campaign, they could simulate either Germany dwindling due to being hammered at 3 fronts, or just forgo it entirely and have it be based on who's winning the campaign.

 

I'm sure that would be far in the future though. I think TAW has some other more urgent matters to tend to for the coming campaign.

1. There is a limit to what can and should be simulated.

2. During the battle of moscow the Axis were at the end of their supply line. Numerically and logistically the red army was in much better shape. 

3. The maps that we have in game are not for the Operation Barbarossa nor for the Case Blue. But for just small part of those campaigns. During most of those battles the sides were more or less balanced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree whit Ramm.

 

The sistem its too rigid, some times on take off you can find a friend are landing,  or maybe you are rolling just after landed and see another plane coming to you and have to evade ... many times only propeller was damaged. In the other hand... what is a combat mision ??? really depends of damage level when u land ???  why if you broke your plane not count like a CM if you really fly and do your job or stay flying  the time required.

 

If you  broke plane on land... have to counts like a CM , if u want dont count like a succeful landing, but its a combat mision anyway no?

 

for me de ideal solution will be consider 2 factors :

 

- Level of damage

- Radius landing.

 

For all damaged levels but inside radius landing... count mision like a CM.

 

For low level damaged inside radius ( on take off allways are iniside radius ) no lose plane.

 

 

 

 

Its my suggestion   :)

 

thx

The problem is that it looks the same in mission log files:

- when you crash during landing completely destroying your aircraft => 100% damaged

- when you land and only bend a propeller => 100% damaged

 

So it's not possible to distinguish between those two situations from the script point of view. 

 

But if you are shot down and then manage to land than (despite of 100% damage) your sortie is count as LANDED and you may get CM.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that it looks the same in mission log files:

- when you crash during landing completely destroying your aircraft => 100% damaged

- when you land and only bend a propeller => 100% damaged

 

So it's not possible to distinguish between those two situations from the script point of view. 

 

But if you are shot down and then manage to land than (despite of 100% damage) your sortie is count as LANDED and you may get CM.

If this is the case, then why doesn't the game count any damage in combat as "destroying" the plane?

 

What I mean is in my Pe-2 if I lose both engines in combat the kill feed says 'So and so destroyed Scojo', however if I only lose one engine, that message does not pop up.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong, just curious why that part of the game works differently at that time than when sustaining damage during a landing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scojo, I believe that the 3rd party script uses a diferrent logic than ingame. Sometimes the game wont give you a kill and the script. The other way around is also true.

 

Btw, if you lose all of your engines the game will credit the kill, but if you manage to do a dead stick landing the script wont give the kill iirc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In game stats and server log stats differ since Rof. BTW IN the first wars I could have emergency landing on active airfield (in game stats) but TAW parser said I landed and got CM. I liked it better ;). Once I lost elevator but manage to land in game I was shot down but in TAW I was saved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that some of you are waiting for the new campaign but it's hard for me to write exact date of the new TAW campaign. Current development took me much more time than I expected.

 

So far we managed to move and configure script, data bases and web server on the new hardware (i7-4790K@4.2Ghz) so there shouldn't be problems with availability of the website. There are new tanks convoys with different tanks types (the ratio of tanks types is different for different maps). New defense position: now there is not one but three defense positions around the city with AT, tanks, bunkers and trucks to destroy, so i should be much harder to destroy the whole defense. Two accounts will be available (one for blue and one for red) to give possibility to balance players. New targets like bridges and train stations are almost finished and I'm working at Ju-52 and paratroopers at the moment. 

 

I hope we start new campaign in a week (or two) but it's all depend on free time. 

  • Upvote 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds awesome Kathon. I really like the ability to balance sides (and it will give me the chance to fly the Ju 52 even tho my squad flies VVS!).

 

Take your time and don't worry about taking longer than expected. As a software guy myself I understand how much work it takes to get things right. In the end people will appreciate it. Good luck with your development! o7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two accounts will be available (one for blue and one for red) to give possibility to balance players.

 

I really like this.  I'm usually flying "pick up" so I jump on whatever side has folks on voice comms.

 

Will this be a one-side per map, or will there be an even shorter countdown timer between being able to switch sides?

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really don't like the two account feature.

1. One of the thing that is different in TAW is that you care about the outcome. When you play both sides you play only for stats.

2. It can increase the imbalance. Like on WOL the attacker/bombers are on 1 side. The fighters are on the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that some of you are waiting for the new campaign but it's hard for me to write exact date of the new TAW campaign. Current development took me much more time than I expected.

 

So far we managed to move and configure script, data bases and web server on the new hardware (i7-4790K@4.2Ghz) so there shouldn't be problems with availability of the website. There are new tanks convoys with different tanks types (the ratio of tanks types is different for different maps). New defense position: now there is not one but three defense positions around the city with AT, tanks, bunkers and trucks to destroy, so i should be much harder to destroy the whole defense. Two accounts will be available (one for blue and one for red) to give possibility to balance players. New targets like bridges and train stations are almost finished and I'm working at Ju-52 and paratroopers at the moment. 

 

I hope we start new campaign in a week (or two) but it's all depend on free time. 

This sounds awesome. Keep up the good work! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I really don't like the two account feature.
1. One of the thing that is different in TAW is that you care about the outcome. When you play both sides you play only for stats.
2. It can increase the imbalance. Like on WOL the attacker/bombers are on 1 side. The fighters are on the other.

 

I'm inclined to agree with you, except you could easily say the same when it is 35 vs 2 getting bombed into oblivion; racking up points off undefended ground attacking.

 

Worth trying at the very least.

Edited by II./JG77_Tuesday

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm inclined to agree with you, except you could easily say the same when it is 35 vs 2 getting bombed into oblivion; racking up points off undefended ground attacking.

 

Worth trying at the very least.

If I am 1 of those poor 2 it will soon change to 36 vs 1. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the major draws for me to the campaign was players being locked into one side for the campaign.  A better solution might be allowing a number of players or clans to apply for permission to switch sides after a 3 map streak win streak and rebalance.  

Either way it just doesn't seem right.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Taw will come back online?

 

I know that some of you are waiting for the new campaign but it's hard for me to write exact date of the new TAW campaign. Current development took me much more time than I expected.

 

...

 

I hope we start new campaign in a week (or two) but it's all depend on free time. 

 
Edited by bald_eagle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just eight post above:

 

 

 

...I hope we start new campaign in a week (or two) but it's all depend on free time. 

 

;)

 

EDIT: Sorry, I was a bit late here :)

Edited by I./JG1_Pragr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the major draws for me to the campaign was players being locked into one side for the campaign.  A better solution might be allowing a number of players or clans to apply for permission to switch sides after a 3 map streak win streak and rebalance.  

 

Either way it just doesn't seem right.

I like this idea, however it's important to keep in mind that this would require someone to do that work, which would fall to the server admins, so that's up to them.

Edited by 71st_AH_Scojo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this idea, however it's important to keep in mind that this would require someone to do that work, which would fall to the server admins, so that's up to them.

 

 

Now we can do work on the battlefield, then go log in as the other side and undo it....

 

What is it that draws you to the idea of having both sides?  It would destroy the very purpose of a campaign imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Y'all make some good points against the two sides thing. I was just excited to fly some Ju 52 when the rest of my squad wasn't online.

 

The motivation described by Kathon was to balance sides. People complain constantly about imbalance, that's why they added quorum last campaign, which turned out to be a bad idea. This time they're trying something different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now we can do work on the battlefield, then go log in as the other side and undo it....

 

What is it that draws you to the idea of having both sides?  It would destroy the very purpose of a campaign imo.

exactly my thoughts.

 

If you ever were in my TEam during one of those campaigns you know how much I try to influence the outcome. And for me it was one of the points of TAW that you chose one side and then flew for it even when you started to loose. "never give up" but with that new rule it would kinda destroy that...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now we can do work on the battlefield, then go log in as the other side and undo it....

 

What is it that draws you to the idea of having both sides?  It would destroy the very purpose of a campaign imo.

I think you missed my point.

 

My point was that having the system set up to where changing sides via submitting requests to server admins places more busy work on their shoulders. If they don't have the time to dedicate to doing this manually themselves but they still want to allow side switching, then they are going to have free side switching. All I was pointing out in that post was a reason for why the server admins may not want to go that route. I was in no way advocating for or against side switching.

 

I personally am ok with being locked into one side, but if the admins decide they want side switching then that's what we get. And if they don't want to micro manage side switching themselves then it has to be open side switching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like the side switching is just the next quorum - great idea on paper but kills the player base in implementation.  I am really excited to fly Germany with the new FM updates for the FW and the challenge of tankbusting with bombs.  I will not be playing religiously if many of the people I play with are switching sides.  It would end up being little more than Wings of Liberty with more death consequences.  In fact I would probably lean more towards WoL in that instance since the player count is likely to be much higher.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could it also be used as an opportunity to recce and do practice runs on targets without risk?

 

I would think the switching would at least be limited to once per map (1hr 45min rotation). Maybe even longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like the side switching is just the next quorum - great idea on paper but kills the player base in implementation.  I am really excited to fly Germany with the new FM updates for the FW and the challenge of tankbusting with bombs.  I will not be playing religiously if many of the people I play with are switching sides.  It would end up being little more than Wings of Liberty with more death consequences.  In fact I would probably lean more towards WoL in that instance since the player count is likely to be much higher.

I don't think it would leave the server completely empty like quorum, but I definitely agree it could hurt. I also feel it goes against the idea of TAW or at least what I thought the idea of TAW was

 

I would think the switching would at least be limited to once per map (1hr 45min rotation). Maybe even longer.

Hopefully this is the case. At the very worst, they could add a spawn restriction time like on WoL but make it some amount of time longer. I think the one on WoL is something like 3-5 min, if I'm not mistaken

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion even the option of switching side once per mission is too short period. If needs to be done then I'd prefer the side selection for whole map/phase. Anyway it could be interesting feature to test.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I think they're planning is having two accounts to your name. One for LW and one for VSS. Your characters will have different stats and different available planes depending on how well you do.

 

So technically you're not switching sides, you'd be switching to your alternative character that may or may not have the plane you want.

Edited by [TWB]Sketch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if the new 110 is in the next TAW and they give the 110E2 to the Axis from the start, maybe 109F2 as well, then numbers shouldn't be an issue.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I think they're planning is having two accounts to your name. One for LW and one for VSS. Your characters will have different stats and different available planes depending on how well you do.

 

So technically you're not switching sides, you'd be switching to your alternative character that may or may not have the plane you want.

Point being, you are still fighting vs yourself.  You can try and split that hair however many ways you want but it is undeniably counter intuitive to campaign style gameplay.

As a suggestion, I would ask everyone who is for having two accounts or characters, whatever go and get a chessboard and play one game against themself.  Then do it 5-6 more times.

 

Doesn't that feel repetitive and dumb?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-snip-

 

go and get a chessboard and play one game against themself.  Then do it 5-6 more times.

Doesn't that feel repetitive and dumb?

 

Some of the greatest Grand Masters of all time do this.

 

The TAW guys are just trying to open up options for better balancing.

Aside: Is TAW something that can be joined/played on the fly when the server is up or is it something that is only available during certain hours and probably organized entirely around European time zones?

 

As an American from the Midwest, I miss out on 9/10 of the cool things that go on in the MP community based on time zone alone.

Edited by 4./JG52_Space_Ghost
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the greatest Grand Masters of all time do this.

 

The TAW guys are just trying to open up options for better balancing.

Aside: Is TAW something that can be joined/played on the fly when the server is up or is it something that is only available during certain hours and probably organized entirely around European time zones?

 

As an American from the Midwest, I miss out on 9/10 of the cool things that go on in the MP community based on time zone alone.

It's up 24/7 during a campaign, but when a campaign completes, the server comes down and  brought back up with reset stats and campaign. Usually the interim period might be quicker, but since the last campaign completed they've been doing some extensive rework to the server and script to try and improve the experience. It should be back up in a few weeks, I think.

Edited by 71st_AH_Scojo
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's up 24/7 during a campaign, but when a campaign completes, the server comes down and  brought back up with reset stats and campaign. Usually the interim period might be quicker, but since the last campaign completed they've been doing some extensive rework to the server and script to try and improve the experience. It should be back up in a few weeks, I think.

 

Thanks, Scojo.

 

If I understand correctly, that means that the mission is never ending/persistent for the duration of the campaign? Or does the mission end after specific time cycles (1hr, 2hr, etc) like the missions on a standard server?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Scojo.

 

If I understand correctly, that means that the mission is never ending/persistent for the duration of the campaign? Or does the mission end after specific time cycles (1hr, 2hr, etc) like the missions on a standard server?

Np :)

 

A mission is roughly 1hr 45min, I think. Based on what happens in that mission, the same map will be brought back with modified targets, or a new map will be brought up to simulate the front moving one way or another. This continues until one side "captures" all of the maps, signifying the end of the overall "campaign".

 

Also, at the end of each mission, the front can move without all objectives being destroyed as long as the attacking ground force strength is significantly higher than the defending ground force strength.

 

This is how I understand it

Edited by 71st_AH_Scojo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I think they're planning is having two accounts to your name. One for LW and one for VSS. Your characters will have different stats and different available planes depending on how well you do.

 

So technically you're not switching sides, you'd be switching to your alternative character that may or may not have the plane you want.

yes, two independent accounts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...